Leo G.4501

I'd forsee people complaining that their teammate is healing them and messing up their damage.

An unpopular opinion but...

Back when they were revamping the traits system where you had to go exploring and do certain events to unlock your traits, I actually liked this idea very much but I just think they executed the idea badly. For one, they didn't add quests or events to obtain these specific traits, they just patched them into existing hearts and heart chains. No, they should have went with a more traditional quest oriented model where you speak to an NPC somewhere that then tells you to "go here and do this training and then I'll teach you". Have that NPC be an actual character with a backstory, a master at their profession and such. This gives a kind of mentor type status and if you have multiples of these profession masters, it'd be like you (the main protagonist) actually learned and amassed many great and powerful abilities over time from many masters of a trade....these NPCs can even be utilized elsewhere in stories rather than cordon off important roles to relatively unknown characters that are then later disposed of. There's so much they could have done....

Secondly, they just took all our existing traits and put them behind walls (for the most part) when instead, they should have just added more traits (kinda like elite specs!) to unlock. Rather than the bland mastery point system to unlock new elite specs, it should have just been leaving your regular traits unlocked normally through mastery points and then the above for unlocking new traits.

> Neglecting the amazing Wardrobe system (mix-n-match options) because of boring Outfits.

Falling prey to their own limited Wardrobe system because their options (mix-n-match) have spiraled into worse and worse flashy/bulky/repetitive designs. Outfits were a breath of fresh air with their sleek, seamless options rather than piece-wise clutter of armor. They should have gone with outfits from the start and improved outfit options (like swappable headpieces/gloves and unique parts to disable).

Basically, the perfect system for GW2 would have been a wardrobe limited to body, head, gloves and back. So much simpler, so much easier to design good looking equipment, less effort creating it thus capable of pumping out more as well as more time to make the different race equipment look more unique.

Also, they should have never made 3 classes of armor (light, medium and heavy). The motif of a set of equipment should dictate if it is to look heavy, light, medium or some blend depending on how its design, not some arbitrary system of categorizing the professions. This would also cut down on the effort involved with creating a set of equipment (rather than making an armor set that must then be transposed into 3 different versions then further disseminated among multiple races and sexes).

Imagine how many cool equipment designs they could put out if they didn't have to imagine a light version of a set of armor they initially imagined as heavy or how stylized it could look if they didn't have to figure out a way to separate the upper part of the design from the lower part (their usually solution is put a buttcape in there).

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> I have no idea what people fight so hard against the ppl who want more armors

>

> Just head shake

Not really fighting. Maybe to the individuals with a seething hate for outfits of those that like outfits. To normal customers that simply buy the stuff that looks nice to them and pass on what they don't like rather that trying to tell others how to spend their money, this is just another thread.

If you really want more armor, just ask for more armor. Better yet, have some ideas of what it might be inspired by. No point pushing your "stop making outfits" agenda.

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> Drop the outfit department pulll them over to armor

Nope. I like outfits.

> @"Balsa.3951" said:

> The real reason they don’t do armor is mix and match what makes it harder to sell armor on a periodic base. Outfits u wear u get bored u buy a new one. It’s just they found out that this format make people buy more.

The real reason is that players complained about selling armors in the gemstore and it was discussed that armor is better to earn in-game as rewards. But when you have a business model of making players pay for some cosmetics and earn some in-game, you don't merely stop selling and only offer them for free, you replace them with something else. And that's how outfits manifested.

And I find it funny you assume that getting bored of a look is somehow inherently limited to outfits or that is their only purpose. I had a theme of a scholarly prophet type Firebrand who wears cloth and outfits are the only decent way to do that.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > You would certainly have to ignore lore, story, culture and aesthetics to come to your conclusions but doing so leaves you extremely open to assumption or jumping to conclusions.

>

> On the contrary my entire post was about the technical part of the race discussion, which is objective. Lore, story, culture and aesthetics cannot be quantified and are entirely subjective.

>

Lore, story, culture and aesthetics CAN be quantified, in the context of what players choose to play. You simply have to ask them and then count the number. That's what quantify means. It's just that you can't quantify it because you don't have those numbers, which is the point I'm making.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > How do you get that from the above data? Where are your polls asking about animations, armor selections and so forth? Nothing in those data points exclaims that the choice in race is based on any of those.

>

> The data shows that one race with unique skeleton is played by a tiny 15% while another race with a different unique skeleton doesn't even reach 15%,

>

But that doesn't tell you that animations, armor or skeleton has anything to do with it.

> > Again, where do you get that? Asura is statistically more created and played than Norn or Sylvari.

>

> But not by the humanoid skeletons as a whole which amount for 70% of the characters.

>

But Sylvari uses the humanoid skeleton but is played less than the Asura that doesn't use the humanoid skeleton. This is a factor that contradicts your observations and ignores that what inflates that 70% statistic isn't Sylvari and Norn, but that Human is statistically higher in characters made/played. You don't factor in why humans are made more, just that the humanoid skeleton is played more. You don't think it might have to do with veteran players from GW1? Or that human-types are just more commonly made across most MMOs?

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > One last time, where do you get this? There is certainly no financial data included in those statistics nor development resource data. The truth about statistics is, you can make them express a lot of different messages if you manipulate them the right way but one statistic I am confident of is that I'm 100% certain that none of us are mind readers.

>

> Let's sum up, designing a new race with the same skeleton as one of the current races will require objectively less development resources than creating an entire new skeleton. This is because using a skeleton of the current races means all the animations and armors will be largely the same. Norn, Sylvari and Humans share armors and animations. The least amount of development resources required is by using a humanoid skeleton.

>

Well firstly, Norn don't share armor and animations (at least not Norn Males). Secondly, tell me what you know about development resources and their allocation. Educate me.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Furthermore, Charr and Asura have other issues too. Charr have a tail and run on all 4 legs, to keep their development cost low, the new race using Charr profile would have to also have a tail and run on all 4 legs, to keep the animations the same. Asura have their unique flavor that would need to be applied to the new race using the Asura skeleton, meaning a race based on the Asura profile will also have to follow certain limitations.

Well I could counter this in several ways: 1. If a humanoid race such as the Largos were implemented, how are you certain that they wouldn't have unique animations? 2. I've seen a Charr run on two legs. Simply be in combat and stow your weapon. 3. You don't really have an argument for a race based on a Charr skeleton with a tail that could run on four legs. 4. The changes you outline (changing run/walk stride, taking/changing tail sections of the armor, modifying the profile of Asura) sound about as difficult as working a new race into the current story, i.e. not so difficult that it wouldn't as worthwhile as a humanoid.

Frankly, I don't care how you rationalize your stance. Had you just mentioned that "most players make humanoid characters" so just make a humanoid new race, that's a solid observation. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions aren't actually objective.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> And looking back on revenants, do you remember how they had to give players a $10 character slot for their new profession after the forum exploded with complaints? What makes you think that if they added a new race with a new expansion/Living Story episode and didn’t give out a new character slot that there wouldn’t be the same backlash, forcing ANet to give out the new race for free or at a lower price.

Well, it's not like the devs lost actual money by giving players an additional slot. They lost possible profit though. But I feel that the whole Revenant character slot debacle was pretty dumb on those that complained about it. If I'm not mistaken, some of the expansion bundles had character slots which added value to them and just dolling out character slots for everyone just made it less useful unless you were planning to make more than 2 characters at the time.

If there were a hypothetical expansion that had a new race as one of the features, I feel they should merely add the 1 slot along with it, especially if they market it that the story of that expansion carries two sides, one of which you can only experience as the new race. For bigger bundles, of course add more slots because it'd have a bit more value to those that want to make multiple professions of that race.

I guess since you didn't like my previous post, I'll have to elaborate on why your interpretation of those statistics is disingenuous.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Humans are the most played race and about 1/3 of the characters are humans.

> The humanoid races (Human, Norn and Sylvari) combined are about 70%.

>

> This means that the more "unique" races (in terms of animations and armors, not talking about lore/story/aesthetics) the Asura and the Charr are less/equal to 15% each

You would certainly have to ignore lore, story, culture and aesthetics to come to your conclusions but doing so leaves you extremely open to assumption or jumping to conclusions. What I concluded from my interpretation of those same statistics is simply that there is a decent amount of the playerbase that would choose to explore other races than the standard human portrayed in nearly all fantasy RPGs and that interpretation is not an assumption it draws no conclusions from those statistics.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> What we get from the data above:

> a) creating a new race with a completely unique skeleton, meaning brand new animations and armors, is not a very good idea

How do you get that from the above data? Where are your polls asking about animations, armor selections and so forth? Nothing in those data points exclaims that the choice in race is based on any of those.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> b) creating a new race that uses either the Asura or Charr skeleton is also not a very worthwhile investment

Again, where do you get that? Asura is statistically more created and played than Norn or Sylvari.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> c) in order to be profitable and apply to as many people as possible and at the same time take less resources and development time, a humanoid skeleton should be used for a potential new race, this narrows down the available races to select. Less development, higher potential audience, what's not to like?

>

One last time, where do you get this? There is certainly no financial data included in those statistics nor development resource data. The truth about statistics is, you can make them express a lot of different messages if you manipulate them the right way but one statistic I am confident of is that I'm 100% certain that none of us are mind readers.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I dunno. It feels like these two replies sort of contradict themselves rather than the OP.

> Oh, quite possible, seeing as you're responding to two different people. I so happen to disagree with @"robertthebard.8150" on some of his points as well.

>

> If you are talking about _my_ two points however, then i have already answered why i don't think they are contradictory.

I understand it's two different posters. It's that they take the same stance against the OP but for somewhat contrasting reasons.

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > The only way to have crafting more relevant/more profitable (which, by the way, does not automatically imply a _positive_ impact on TP) is to make it harder, more complicated, and/or more annoying

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Wow, such a horrible design. You would make crafting worse so fewer people would be willing to do it at all and then create a fake scarcity by reducing the supply of crafted items in the game. This is the kind of design decision people make in MMORPG that leads to players rioting (just see Anthem right now).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The rather obvious alternative is, instead of reducing supply, to increase demand.

> > > > > As far as relevancy, yes, making crafting less an option and more a requirement would make it more relevant, but not in a good way. People that dislike crafting would not like being forced into it more. People that like crafting would still dislike that they can't really use crafting for profit (any more that they can now). Thus, there would be no benefit whatsoever.

> > > >

> > > > But these two points counter themselves. If people that dislike crafting can instead obtain the relevant items from the people that do like to craft, that's potential profit for the people that craft and it's bypassing the requirement of those that dislike to craft thus the benefit is there.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Except that, try as you might, you can't sell BtA items, like backpacks, to share an item that I can already craft that's exotic, and yet, I can't sell them.

> >

> > Well don't you think that'd be part of the suggestion here?

>

> What I am thinking is that there's a reason ANet went with this set up, and I suspect it's got something to do with the economy. Why else would anyone make desirable items BtA when acquired?

>

> It gets really easy to "abuse" this kind of system. It also gets really easy to corner the market, and drive prices sky high, causing massive inflation, and making it hard for regular players, or players that don't want to craft, to get items that can only be achieved via crafting, especially with the "make crafted items better than drop items" in the OP. I've seen what happens with uncontrolled economies in MMOs. Base items listing for literally billions of the game's currency on their TP equivalents. I'd prefer to stay away from that, it's kind of refreshing, to be honest, to not have to count the 0s behind a price to see if I have enough money or not. I realize that this is likely exactly what would make crafting "relevant" to some, but we don't need it here, and frankly, we shouldn't really want it either.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > The only way to have crafting more relevant/more profitable (which, by the way, does not automatically imply a _positive_ impact on TP) is to make it harder, more complicated, and/or more annoying

> > > >

> > > > Wow, such a horrible design. You would make crafting worse so fewer people would be willing to do it at all and then create a fake scarcity by reducing the supply of crafted items in the game. This is the kind of design decision people make in MMORPG that leads to players rioting (just see Anthem right now).

> > > >

> > > > The rather obvious alternative is, instead of reducing supply, to increase demand.

> > > As far as relevancy, yes, making crafting less an option and more a requirement would make it more relevant, but not in a good way. People that dislike crafting would not like being forced into it more. People that like crafting would still dislike that they can't really use crafting for profit (any more that they can now). Thus, there would be no benefit whatsoever.

> >

> > But these two points counter themselves. If people that dislike crafting can instead obtain the relevant items from the people that do like to craft, that's potential profit for the people that craft and it's bypassing the requirement of those that dislike to craft thus the benefit is there.

> The current situation shows, that while the dislike exists, it's not so pronounced to make people actually avoid crafting to a degree where it would make it profitable. It's not enough for few people willing to buy rather than to craft to exist. In order for crafting to be profitable, those people would need to significantly outnumber those willing to craft. In gw2 however, the crafting system is very easy to use, so even many of the people disliking crafting are likely to use it when faced with significant price difference.

>

> If you made crafting more necessary, without at the same time making it a much greater time/effort investment (so, basically, without redoing the whole underlying system), that situation would not only not change, but even more people would be pushed into crafting for themselves. Even though they'd dislike it.

>

>

I dunno. It feels like these two replies sort of contradict themselves rather than the OP.

Firstly, crafting doesn't cause inflation. Inflation causes inflation (overabundance of currency to goods ratio or overabundance of goods to currency).

Secondly, one talks about the ratio of "crafters" (defined people liking, willing and profiting off crafting) to "non-crafters" (defined as those not in the former group) needs to be exclusive to work while the other says if its exclusive they will control the market but not taking into account that neither the crafters or the non-crafters will corner the market, but the traders (defined as the people that buy low and sell high). The traders currently corner the market and they will corner the market either if crafting is relevant or not.

That being said, I'm just trying to spark dialog. I understand what you're saying, I just feel that we're all coming at this from slightly different perspectives meaning I think there is still worthwhile discussion to be had. I'm of the group that enjoys making stuff in-game but dislike that the system is boring and extremely automated to a degree that it might as well be an NPC that has a "patronage gauge". The relevancy of crafted items is more an discussion of the economy and in-game equipment as a whole. I think the game should have tried to keep crafted and dropped gear as "different" from obtained/rewarded gear. Like, instead of exotics being a weaker version of ascended, it should have been that Superior Runes/Sigils or below being slottable in exotic gear while ascended would have had a different upgrade that was focused on something unique from runes/sigils.

But yeah, that would require a rework of equipment and upgrades as well as likely needing to alter crafting. Of course, you could keep the status quo because there's no telling what ramifications widespread changes like what the OP or I suggest would have.

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > The only way to have crafting more relevant/more profitable (which, by the way, does not automatically imply a _positive_ impact on TP) is to make it harder, more complicated, and/or more annoying

> > > >

> > > > Wow, such a horrible design. You would make crafting worse so fewer people would be willing to do it at all and then create a fake scarcity by reducing the supply of crafted items in the game. This is the kind of design decision people make in MMORPG that leads to players rioting (just see Anthem right now).

> > > >

> > > > The rather obvious alternative is, instead of reducing supply, to increase demand.

> > > As far as relevancy, yes, making crafting less an option and more a requirement would make it more relevant, but not in a good way. People that dislike crafting would not like being forced into it more. People that like crafting would still dislike that they can't really use crafting for profit (any more that they can now). Thus, there would be no benefit whatsoever.

> >

> > But these two points counter themselves. If people that dislike crafting can instead obtain the relevant items from the people that do like to craft, that's potential profit for the people that craft and it's bypassing the requirement of those that dislike to craft thus the benefit is there.

> >

>

> Except that, try as you might, you can't sell BtA items, like backpacks, to share an item that I can already craft that's exotic, and yet, I can't sell them.

Well don't you think that'd be part of the suggestion here?

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > The only way to have crafting more relevant/more profitable (which, by the way, does not automatically imply a _positive_ impact on TP) is to make it harder, more complicated, and/or more annoying

> >

> > Wow, such a horrible design. You would make crafting worse so fewer people would be willing to do it at all and then create a fake scarcity by reducing the supply of crafted items in the game. This is the kind of design decision people make in MMORPG that leads to players rioting (just see Anthem right now).

> >

> > The rather obvious alternative is, instead of reducing supply, to increase demand.

> As far as relevancy, yes, making crafting less an option and more a requirement would make it more relevant, but not in a good way. People that dislike crafting would not like being forced into it more. People that like crafting would still dislike that they can't really use crafting for profit (any more that they can now). Thus, there would be no benefit whatsoever.

But these two points counter themselves. If people that dislike crafting can instead obtain the relevant items from the people that do like to craft, that's potential profit for the people that craft and it's bypassing the requirement of those that dislike to craft thus the benefit is there.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Of course, ANet could limit the armor initially to a few sets, skip the voice, not worry about continuity, not have a home city for the new race.

The home city issue is also one of the simplest solutions. Considering an expansion that moves to a new area will undoubtedly have a new hub area that acts as a nexus to the new zone paths. The challenge comes with trying to make such a city zone a place players visit often rather than just a spot for newbies to have their tutorials (because a new race would likely require some advancement in the story thus no tutorial/"starter zones" required).

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

>That brings us to the other major limiting factor. It turns out that only a fraction of players spends any significant time with non-human races. Some people only play humans, some people mostly play humans. Of those who do, only a fraction do so just for the chance to play a new race. For many, the above things are critical features.

>

I believe the statistics show that humans is the most played race but it is still in the minority if you consider the amount of players that make/play non-human characters are who added races would appeal to.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Some people have suggested that there are ways to monetize a new race. And there are. ANet could charge for an unlock or charge more for a character slot for a new race. They could create player housing, that would include gem shop decorations. The forums have been filled with such ideas for ages.

>

Yes, at this point, I feel Anet needs to start getting the ball rolling on monetizing newer game additions. New races is just one possibility. Build template slots, maybe a custom appearance template. I personally believe they can't keep making mount skins, glider skins, weapon skins, mini-pets and outfits and keep up their profits.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> The problem is that this assumes that ANet has never considered any of it. If we presume that they know their business (and we have good cause to, since they've been making money off of RPGs for what amounts to forever in their industry), then we have to presume that they have considered all of this and can't make the math work. They know that a new race is a huge selling point for expansions, they know that a substantial fraction of the minority who loves new races would spend anything they can for it. And despite that, they still think this is overall a financial drain.

>

> Of course, we could presume that they don't know their business (and we have some cause to doubt). We'd then have to assume that it has never occurred to them to try any of these income-generating ideas or cost work-arounds until posted in the forums. And then we'd have to assume that they are good enough to understand the idea, incorporate it into their business model, and turn it into a strong profit-per-cost initiative. Of course, that's not likely, since in order to get to that step, we assumed that they don't know their business very well.

>

> tl;dr a new race is definitely possible; even ANet says that. The problem is that the costs exceed the conceivable benefits. It's a great game-playing idea; it's just not the best use of limited resources.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> I have seen pure f2p MMOs (not b2P like GW2) introducing new races so it is definitely doable. Now it would still be a lot of work so judging from the way Anet handles things of late and taking recent news into account, I 'd say it's possible but highly improbable. The only way I can see them doing it is making a new race based on existing assets. like tengu on a human base, but still unlikely.

And for my contrary thoughts on new races. While I'm certain Anet knows their game better than anyone else, they wouldn't have been the first gaming studio who had too lofty of goals for the creation/sustainment of their own game. They might not be bleeding money or anything, but they certainly are the authors of their own demise with regard to implementing resource intensive features that would be just a couple development cycles for most other similar games without compounding their work. Seriously, who makes an MMO with multiple races and then completely botches the opportunity to make more? For example, I'm 100% certain Blade and Soul could *easily* make a new race for their game because they don't require extra voiced work and their armor system works on highly stylized outfits; FFXIV already added a new race and could add another with relative ease (although their races are rather garbage re-copies).

While I can praise Anet for their great implementation of their diverse and unique races, I wouldn't give them the out and just push new races off as too much work. If they are truly as competent as claimed, then they knew the amount of work they were piling on their plate. The amount of work and effort involved in adding races is a testament to their work ethic, not their limit.

> @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Basically, if you're not going to put effort into something different like new races, stories, voices and animations, then what ARE you going to make and how long do you think you can keep pushing it out before it stops attracting more people to spend cash on it?

>

> Personal housing. They can sell house models and all kinds of interior decoration in the Gem Store. It could fund ArenaNet for the next few years, until they find something else to monetize.

>

> I fully expect the next expansion to have housing as a major feature. In the expansion we would be given a shack with wooden mobiliary, and ArenaNet would then sell multiple kinds of mansions at the Gem Store, charging for each table, each chair, each wall decoration, each armor stand and so on.

>

That's a possible outcome. I'd like to hope there are enough players that would really like to kit out a personal home for others to visit and play around in. Personally, I think the playerbase is quite casual and if the cost of entry is too steep or shallow (we only barely got sittable chairs...) the outcome wouldn't be as lucrative as one might hope.

For external customization, I personally would enjoy a customizable companion with their own story missions and small-scale PvE content to incorporate them in (like 3-man dungeons for you, a friend and the companion). Would be even better if those companions could be chosen from a larger swath of optional races like Skritt, Quagan or even villainous races like Krate or Centaur. You can even show off a companion to random people without needing to invite them to your personal housing and actually use it for stuff.

> @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > One factor I often think about when it comes to desire is exclusivity. As much as I like something, one thing that affects my enjoyment of a thing is how often I see a thing or how popular a thing is or how easy a thing is to obtain. Each of such considerations aren't always applicable and have different effects on just how much I want a thing.

>

> The flaw in your argument is assuming that people think like you do. You may care about "exclusivity" and so on, but not everyone else does.

I didn't assume that, rather described my personal reason why exclusivity plays a role.

Your reply doesn't really debunk that people factor in exclusivity in how they view a reward, prize or purchases or if exclusivity is valued. It is a factor and it has value.

> @"Crossplay.2067" said:

> Tuesday, when the skins for the warclaw were released, I was about to buy them because I wanted the branded skin. Right as I was about to complete the purchase, I stopped because I really didn't want the rest of the skins. I would have been a waste of money. In fact, there's a lot of skins I don't go for because I can't directly buy them.

I'd tend to agree as I'm one of those individuals who weighs desire for an item to the likely cost of obtaining it. That being said, I have a rather generous standard when it comes to stuff like that and frequency of purchases also plays a factor (even if something might seem too pricey now, it might feel less so a couple of months down the line where I didn't purchase any game-related stuff).

> @"Crossplay.2067" said:

>There are roughly 17 mount skins and 2 glider skins that immediately come to mind. I have to ask the guys in charge of how things are sold to us, is it really worth it? I can only imagine that I'm not the only one holding out until they can buy what they want directly or at least a way having said skins sold on the trading posts so I can convert cash into gold and buy them that way.

I believe this is as intended.

One factor I often think about when it comes to desire is exclusivity. As much as I like something, one thing that affects my enjoyment of a thing is how often I see a thing or how popular a thing is or how easy a thing is to obtain. Each of such considerations aren't always applicable and have different effects on just how much I want a thing.

I think it's a possible reason why people had a love/hate for Greatsword...it's an awesome weapon with awesome skins but everyone uses it and everyone uses the same skins or go for the same legendaries. If the weapon weren't so cool, it'd probably have a neutral audience.

Same could apply for a great new outfit that is released. People will sigh and roll their eyes as everyone goes off to wear the new hotness (this is how I felt when wings were the new craze but I honestly feel the same now as wing backpieces are kinda corny when you really stop to think about it).

Basically, where I'm getting at is, the skin you want isn't desirable enough for you to throw regret to the wind and put cash/gems down on it but it IS desirable enough for others. For net profit, it doesn't really matter because the more options you have to buy, the less you're going to care about more options going forward. For in-game desirability, you not purchasing it makes the item less common and more exclusive thus more interesting and desirable to someone.

There will be other sales and other skins and as you interact with the activity of being a consumer, you'll be more and more aware of what you want, might want or don't. But a sucker is born every day and a bright-eyed consumer will buy impulsively. It's not predatory, though. Just have to understand the more savvy a consumer is, the harder it is to sell them things without cutting deeper and deeper into profits (case in point: your OP).

You're not suppose to date the mount.

I work with some ugly people too but they're invaluable and awesome.

One of my superiors showed me a picture of an ugly wild boar he took out a couple years back, he said it was delicious.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> I really don’t think that new races will be the cash cow that will bring the money in.

Well, if they require a new character slot, they require stuff like inventory slots, bags, makeover kits, gear, time and unlocking.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

>I doubt new players will buy the game just for new races (I know I never bought a game just because they made a new race).

Well I bought and played the game when I saw the different races, so I spent all the cash I did on the effort they put into their playable races. My anecdotal counters yours.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

>They’ll get $10 for a new char slot for all who buy one... and then what?

That's why I asked. Then what would you think would be some good features to make them more enticing, perhaps not to specifically you but to a wider audience?

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

>What skins can they sell that’s specific for new races that will bring in the bucks?

You're thinking pretty small. I have ideas, the problem is no one ever listens to them. In fact, there's almost a concentrated effort to shut down any kind of suggestions that have a minute possibility to have a hint at maybe requiring effort to make.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

>They’ll still be riding on their favorite mounts and still be playing on the old professions. After an initial burst of interest in armor they’ll have settled on the armor their new char will wear. They’ll still be playing on the same PvE maps, the same sPvP game and the same WvW maps their other chars on playing on, so no new money there.

>

So what's the difference if no new race was added and you're doing all that with the initial 5 races?

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> They added gliding to the game with HoT which was a good money maker for them and they added mounts to PoF, also a good money maker as they sell skins in the gemstore for both of these. Twice so far they’ve added unexpected and popular new features. I wouldn’t say so quickly that they aren’t/can’t think up a new big and popular.

We'll just have to see then with the next expansion. I feel gliding was a great feature to add but I was never interested in skinning the brief action which is likely why they created another form of movement that isn't brief and more skinnable. But since we've got the ability to fly, pretty much, the whole travel feature skinning realm is pretty much covered. Rather than approach a suggestion from the perspective of "why it won't work", I usually come at it as "how can you make it work". I still feel, if their cash shop game is focused on cosmetics, there are only so many things you can do with that:

* External Character Customization (minions, pets, personal decorated area, companions, guilds/groups)

* Equipment Customization (armor/outfits, weapons, gliders, mounts)

* Direct Character Customization (namely features such as hair, color, face, etc)

* Indirect Character Customization (things like story paths, animations/emotes and voice)

So how hard have they put into these areas? External customization has some but I can see some possible stuff they can push. Equipment customization has been done to death. Direct customization has some and I can foresee much more. Indirect has gotten very little. I feel that, with new races, you hit both direct and indirect customization, perhaps even opening the door for more options (imagine if you can choose different voiced options for each race (combat only) so all your characters with the same race/sex don't share the same voice?).

Again, I'm not looking at this from a perspective of "that requires too many resources". I'm speaking objectively, as a customer, what options are there to spend money on and what is effectively untapped.

There's also the option of creating other game modes to monetize but I think it's a bit in conflict with P2W to elaborate.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> As I see it, the problem with races is that race is tied to the personal story, achievements, the home instance, etc making new races either needing to fit into the personal story or the devs needing to change character creation. When you consider that it took them a full year to fix one UI bug that forced the closing of the Hall of Monument calculator, changing character creation would be very resource intensive

>

> The last time they commented on new races they said

>

> >[GW2 meet and greet](

>

> >I asked whether they have even considered adding a new race for PoF. Mike said that no and then added that new races in GW2 are "not impossible but very unlikely" to appear in the future. Implementing them would require a lot of resources that can be spent better on creating new content relevant for all players.

Was this in context of their studio working on several side projects in tandem with creating the new content?

The way I see it, they're starting to run out of avenues of new viable content. You can keep adding more mounts but soon, you get people that settle on their favorites and aren't interested in getting even more mounts except for GP or to show in LA. You can keep adding more armor that looks better and better (not likely) than the old but then people will stop buying the old and only get the new better looking stuff. I doubt a new profession will ever be introduced and elite specs roll through quite slowly and even if they pushed out more, it'd require more balancing efforts. Monetizing the story is an option but seems rather limited. New game modes?

Basically, if you're not going to put effort into something different like new races, stories, voices and animations, then what ARE you going to make and how long do you think you can keep pushing it out before it stops attracting more people to spend cash on it? Or the inverse of that, if you did decide to make a new race, what sort of stuff could you put behind it that players wouldn't expect to make it more interesting and attract new spenders?

> @"syszery.1592" said:

> Major: Power

> Minor: Power + Ferocity

>

> (only two stats) <3 <3

I once considered something like this but figured it might make for a rather limited builds.

Then I thought, what if such equipment were limited to 1 item per build?

Maybe even some special stat combos that decrease a stat in exchange for something else being limited so you can mix and match various special pieces.

Don't drop the charged thaumaturgical compound.

....it's unstable and could cause a singularity.

I think the price is fine but I'm not going to buy it primarily because I'm not interested in mount skins.

I usually buy outfits and skins and while I have bought mount skins in the past, once I have enough variety, I stop seeking out more variety and only get the things that really catches me personally. I'm looking for new races to play (be it purely cosmetic, some sort of super upgraded tonic, an alt-race companion to interact with or the whole shibang with options, armors, personal story, voice actor and all) and I'd be hard pressed to buy more cosmetics without that feature.

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > > @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > > Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

> > >

> > > A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

> >

> > Perhaps I was incorrect then to include you with the person that quoted you and replied to you. Please help me to understand a few things then.

> >

> > 1. do you view the characterization "milking" to be other than unethical? If so, can you explain to me so that I can understand how your usage does not indicate unethical practices? If you do indeed view the characterization of "milking" as unethical, then once again you are indirectly declaring that Anet is unethical, how is that not an attack on their character either individually or collectively?

> > 2. How would you suggest that they "disguise" an intent to make money off a new feature? Each and every product they release on the gem store is for the express and explicit purpose of enticing us to spend our discretionary money with them instead of somewhere else. Or do you consider the additional week of waiting that you suggest would be sufficient to soften the wholly accurate impression that Anet is attempting to make money from us?

> >

> > I am not trying to be offensive to any, just to encourage a different approach to disagreeing with them.

>

> Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

>

> On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

>

> Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

>

> I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

Perhaps I'm a cynic but i don't care much for being PR'ed to. Even through your explanation, you seem aware of it(PR)'s intent so while I can see the purpose to those that aren't aware or who put more value in image than in performance or convenience, what exactly do you gain from being unable to purchase the skins for an extra week? Maybe if I were in the marketing department and was being compensated for my forethought in such matters, but as a customer, it doesn't actually make a difference. Unless it won't be available this being out of sync with people's pay days, I'd have bought it then just as I'd buy it now or reversed if I didn't like the skins.

This is my own personal opinion though. The same PR approaches are also what keeps hot gem store items limited time. While it may get the unaware to spend more, it just stops me from buying things I want.

> @"lLobo.7960" said:

> I don't understand why you would want dmg traits on the water line.

> Why would you go into water for dmg?

>

I think it's more a matter of "would you still like to do damage while in water" as it'd be something you can do while supporting. Then again, I wouldn't directly advocate for straight up damage to water attunement but rather offensive support to reward a supportive build.

> Anyway, the way attunements work (and IMO, the way they should keep working) is that the ele itself is very versatile, but attunements are very specific (hence why we dont have water skills doing massive dmg - goodbye ice spike). The efficacy of the ele on each area depends on how it improves a certain attunement. The ele itself (no traits) is almost like a blank (low dmg, low healing, low defense, low mobility) but this gives it the higher potential for specializing. This specialization comes from focusing the elements that are associated with that role: Fire for sustained dmg, air for burst and mobility, earth for defense and water for healing and cleansing.

The remove defensive conditions and CC from air and fire and put them in earth and water...

FYI, I don't agree with that change, but that's basically the standard you're putting to water attunement.

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > The irony is, in real life, money hoarders are bad for the world, since millionaires and billionaires contribute poorly to society, even the ones that give to charities donate very little of their fortune compared to what is raised by other means.

> >

> > They only do what they have to to maintain a good social standing, at least by apperances.

> >

> > But in-game, money hoarders are good, because they take gold out of the econemy and keep material prices profitable. Without people who hoard gold, items and materials, everything in the game wouldn't even be worth selling.

> >

> > You'd end up NPC'ing everything for coppers. (That's why TP flipping is allowed.)

>

> Today's lesson in real world money: the term "millionaire" gets thrown around loosely, and the people at large have a poor understanding of it. What we're really talking about is Net Worth, which is the sum of all theoretical assets owned. This means your house, your company, your car, your degree, etc. This isn't income, or even how much money is in the bank. Sure, we can say that somebody is worth a billion dollars, but in reality it means they own a company that is worth a billion dollars. In order to have that much cash on hand, they'd have to liquidate it. Or rather, sell off everything and fire everybody who works for them. There's 11 million millionaires in the U.S. alone, and they have a 5 figure income. They're millionaires because that is the combined value of their house, their retirement fund, their cars, their savings, and their checking accounts after working for 30 years or so.

>

> Likewise, the modern world has fractional banking. The billionaire doesn't have a Scrooge Mc'Duck vault full of gold bullion that he swims in and never spends. What they do have is stocks, bonds, securities, savings and checking accounts. See, all of the money that you give to the bank doesn't stay in the bank. The bank then uses that money to give out loans to other people (which is how the bank itself makes money). At any time, there's only a small percentage of the money that's "in the bank" is actually in the bank. This means that whenever a small business gets a loan, it is using the funds that a billionaire supposedly owns. Likewise, stocks and bonds are just complicated loans themselves, used to give money to businesses and the government in exchange for the promise to pay it back later.

>

> The tl;dr is that no, money hoarders are not bad for the world. This isn't dungeons and dragons, where a dragon sleeps on top of its treasure trove sequestered in a mountain stronghold. The modern economy is liquid, and most of the assets that a billionaire owns is trading hands and funding other people.

What the heck? You got me in your sig. That's impossible because no one ever listens to me!

EDIT: btw, thumbs up. I was going to reply to that post but I'm not quite as financially literate but I do know that, at the very least, a millionaire likely contributes more in taxes than I do period (as I'm getting "free" healthcare and college from the military and own little capital such as real estate or stocks as of current).